Issue: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton want to improve the ‘Baptist’ image, and Carter has started a Baptist voice initiative to try and improve the Baptist image beyond narrow-minded fundamentalism.  Additionally, Carter has written a book and has taken a public stand that the current issues in Israel/Palestine are all on the heads of the (Jewish) Israelis, prompting the resignation of 15 board members from his organization.

Slice/CRN Take: Both the Baptist initiative and the Carter debacle are signs of Clinton trying to get the church to look the other way on sexual infidelity and as a sign of moral anarchy.

My Take:  I am mostly in agreement with CRN.

• I agree to a point with Slice on the Carter & Clinton’s initiative in the Baptist church.  I am personally in disagreement with denominational organization, and such initiatives by Carter and Clinton would be impossible (along with the drift of the mainline churches into completely unsound doctrine around gay marriage, gender issues, universalism and the like) were it not for these denominational conventions.  That said, I don’t actually see the Baptist church taking a ‘look the other way’ official policy on infidelity.
• Carter’s recent efforts in the Middle-east have been fairly embarrassing all around along with his efforts on most other fronts.  While he IS a man of some integrity, that does not always translate into sound judgement or wise foreign policy.

I’m sure someone will disagree with me…

Issue: Bishop TD Jakes has been invited to speak at the Creative Church Conference (C3) Feb. 22-23, 2007, along with Ed Young Jr., Ed Young Sr. and Mark Driscoll.  Both Youngs are members of the SBC, TD Jakes comes from a Pentecostal background and Driscoll is either emergent (if you ask the TR’s) or is a culturally relevant, but hard-core Calvinist (if you ask the emergents).

Slice/CRN Take: Jakes’ church has a differing view of the Trinity that is heretical.  By sharing the same stage with Jakes, the Youngs are ‘unequally yoked’ and, as a result, the SBC is turning a blind eye to heresy, and, therefore becoming apostate.  “Reverend” Ken Silva has written to Dr. Frank Page (president of the SBC) and Ed Young, Jr. to plea for them to prevent this.  He has also written to Jakes to request clarification of his view of the trinity.

My Take: I see two issues here:

1. Speaking on the same stage with a figure who will speak on a topic (church leadership techniques) that has nothing to with the area of controvery (a definition of Trinity) does not give carte blanche endorsement to everything that individual has to say.  If he says something out of line with scripture, can we not trust the Holy Spirit to grant discernment to the pastors who will be in attendance?  Ken’s increasingly shrill calls will most likely go unanswered – not because the gentlemen he has written are hell-bent on “Satan-inspired ecumenical ‘union’”, but because, as people in such public positions often do, they will see his calls for what they are – Guilt-by-Association (GBA) tactics from a hyper-critical ‘discernment blogger’.
2. I believe Bishop Jakes’ view of the Trinity does differ from the traditional doctrine (which, should be noted, was developed long after the last of the Apostles died).  Before the Church became overwhelmingly Western and Hellenistic, it still accepted that God was both One (Deut 6:4 – the most important command) and Three (Genesis 1:1-3), but it did not try to reconcile this seeming descrepency.  Some tried to insist that He was really One (to try and make Jesus less than God), and others insisted He was Three (Creator, Holy Spirit and Word) AND One.  As I read Jakes’ church’s definition (and it would be nice to see more clarification on WHY his church defines this differently), it still insists on both Three and One, but tries to define how the 3 and the 1 operate together.  I am still failing to see, though, how this makes the God they worship – who they would say is YHWH – different from the God we worship – who we would also say is YHWH.  I am NOT looking for what Ken says interpretively they believe (as I’m sure they would not agree with his straw-man definition as he has currently written it), but what they actually believe.  So, until presented with evidence that Jakes’ church believe in a different God (i.e. Vishnu, Allah, etc.) or a different Jesus (a la Mormonism) or a different gospel (a la JW’s), I am hesitant to not consider him a Christian.

 

I am certain there will folks who disagree with me, with CRN/Slice, or both.